4-1-2-3...no goals, no fun, no job

[DocSnyder]

Hey,

whats wrong with my tactic? I'm managing Ross County, standing on the last place with 17 points after 21 games...12:37 goals...is it the tactic? The bad team? The bad manager? They want 8 points in the next 5 matches, otherwise I'll be sacked...

PI: only close down more for the front four

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, DocSnyder said:

 

4 hours ago, DocSnyder said:

standing on the last place with 17 points after 21 games...12:37 goals...is it the tactic? The bad team?

Maybe it's partly due to the "bad team", but is primarily about the tactic.

Just look how defensively exposed your right flank is - both WB and CM on attack duties.

At the same time, the left flank is pretty much the opposite - a bit too conservative.

So your both flanks are problematic, although in different ways - the right one overly vulnerable, and the left one lacking wide support in the final third. 

Plus, given the reputation of your team, instructions such as counter-press, play out of defence and work ball into box are also potentially risky - for different reasons and to varying degrees, but anyway risky. 

[frukox]

If I were the worst performing team in the league, I’d first load the pressure on the opposing team before the match and use relaxing, encouraging and sympathetic teamtalks and if I won, I’d praise the team even if it was a scrappy win if the morale is low. After dealing with the build-up before the match, I’d prepare a counterattacking tactic until teams start to defend deep and narrow against me. Yours is an unbalanced high-tempo direct crossing style which is too risky against teams taking risks against you because of your poor form. I’d create a counterattacking tactic on Balanced or Positive Mentality(risky) like this:

          DLF(A)

IF(A).             IW(S)-W(S)

      DLP(S)   CM(A)

                 A

WB(S)   NCB(D)  CB(D)  NFB(D)

             G(D)-SK(S)

More Direct Passing, Pass Into Space(optional), Higher Tempo(should be tweaked during the match), Hit Early Crosses, Regroup, Counter, Lower LOE, Get Stuck In(need 7 good tacklers, untick this when you get a lot of yellow cards and defend higher-need fast and defensive mentals across your defensive line) Defend Narrower(if your opponent wins aerial duels inside your penalty area, defend higher and normal) Higher Pressing Intensity(need players with good acceleration, defensive mentals relative to your league)

If G(D)- Distribute to FullBacks

If SK(S)- Take Short Kicks

CM(A): Play Risky Passes with the trait of Switch Ball to Other Flank

IW(S): Play Killer Balls, Switch Ball to Other Flank

Edited April 5, 2020 by frukox

[DocSnyder]

Am 5.4.2020 um 01:46 schrieb Experienced Defender:

 

Maybe it's partly due to the "bad team", but is primarily about the tactic.

Just look how defensively exposed your right flank is - both WB and CM on attack duties.

At the same time, the left flank is pretty much the opposite - a bit too conservative.

So your both flanks are problematic, although in different ways - the right one overly vulnerable, and the left one lacking wide support in the final third. 

Plus, given the reputation of your team, instructions such as counter-press, play out of defence and work ball into box are also potentially risky - for different reasons and to varying degrees, but anyway risky. 

 

Okay, thank you. Would a simple change in the CM - CMa to the left position, DLPSu to the right - solve this problem? Simplifying the TIs like you said makes sense...whats about my Defensive Line? Is a high one okay with CDs which only have Pace 10-11? I'm afraid that a standard line will give the opponent too many shots from the distance - and these are very dangerous in this FM.

Frukox: thank you too - I will try a counter tactic like this vs. the teams from Glasgow, which seem to play two leagues above us.

[Experienced Defender]

51 minutes ago, DocSnyder said:

Would a simple change in the CM - CMa to the left position, DLPSu to the right - solve this problem?

It will mostly mitigate the problem in terms of defensive vulnerability, but such setup would not be optimal attacking-wise. Here is what it would look like:

DLFsu

IFat                                 Wsu

CMat   DLPsu

DMde

FBsu    CDde   CDde   WBat

As i said, in a purely defensive sense - this is notably more solid that your initial setup.

But the problem is how you create and use space when attacking, especially on the left side where you have 2 players looking to attack the box centrally but there could well be a shortage of effective support from out wide.

On the right side, you now have both wide players in crossing-heavy roles. Which is okay if you want to play a style that largely relies on crosses (like wing-play), but judging from your instructions - you does not seem to want that.

Fortunately, the problem can be easily solved by just one more swap:

DLFsu

IFsu                                    Wat

DLPsu    CMat

DMde

FB/WBat    CDde    CDde     FBsu

This kind of setup would make a lot more sense. It still does not mean that you should play exactly like that. Because some degree of increased defensive risk is still there (mainly on the right flank), so a lot depends on how able your players are to handle that risk. But you can give it a try anyway and see if and how it works for your team.

1 hour ago, DocSnyder said:

whats about my Defensive Line? Is a high one okay with CDs which only have Pace 10-11? I'm afraid that a standard line will give the opponent too many shots from the distance - and these are very dangerous in this FM

I think the best idea is to start with no instructions out of possession (both DL and LOE on standard), especially if your CBs aren't fast and/or intelligent enough. Opposition shots from distance are more likely to be the problem when you play on a lower defensive line (although this does not depend solely on the defensive line setting, but the tactic as a whole). 

[DocSnyder]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Experienced Defender:

It will mostly mitigate the problem in terms of defensive vulnerability, but such setup would not be optimal attacking-wise. Here is what it would look like:

DLFsu

IFat                                 Wsu

CMat   DLPsu

DMde

FBsu    CDde   CDde   WBat

As i said, in a purely defensive sense - this is notably more solid that your initial setup.

But the problem is how you create and use space when attacking, especially on the left side where you have 2 players looking to attack the box centrally but there could well be a shortage of effective support from out wide.

On the right side, you now have both wide players in crossing-heavy roles. Which is okay if you want to play a style that largely relies on crosses (like wing-play), but judging from your instructions - you does not seem to want that.

Fortunately, the problem can be easily solved by just one more swap:

DLFsu

IFsu                                    Wat

DLPsu    CMat

DMde

FB/WBat    CDde    CDde     FBsu

This kind of setup would make a lot more sense. It still does not mean that you should play exactly like that. Because some degree of increased defensive risk is still there (mainly on the right flank), so a lot depends on how able your players are to handle that risk. But you can give it a try anyway and see if and how it works for your team.

I think the best idea is to start with no instructions out of possession (both DL and LOE on standard), especially if your CBs aren't fast and/or intelligent enough. Opposition shots from distance are more likely to be the problem when you play on a lower defensive line (although this does not depend solely on the defensive line setting, but the tactic as a whole). 

 

Thanks a lot again...I'll try it in a new save. A Half Back instead of the DMde would gain a little bit more defensive stability, or?

 

Toonrock: I think my team is not good enough for super-gegenpress. But perhaps it will be it in a few years.

[Experienced Defender]

27 minutes ago, DocSnyder said:

A Half Back instead of the DMde would gain a little bit more defensive stability, or?

If you want more direct protection of your back-line, I would rather go with an anchor man. Half back makes more sense when both fullbacks (or wing-backs) regularly bomb forward, but in your setup only 1 of them has an attack-minded role, while the other is fairly conservative. 

[Experienced Defender]

@TacticsMaster I removed your post because it did nothing to help the OP. Instead, you made a needless and by no means constructive comment on someone else's post. Whether your comment made sense or not from a purely logical perspective, such manner of posting is absolutely unwelcome here, because it tends to provoke a pointless argument and ultimately derail the thread. 

If you want to offer some constructive tactical advice to the OP, that's more than welcome. But anything other than that is not.

Thank you. 

[Overmars]

One thing to keep in mind when using lone-striker tactics is that the game will crush you if your striker is on poor form. This is especially true once the game starts counting the minutes since your striker's last goal. I used a similar formation to you in a recent save, and my lone striker scored twice in 18 matches. I finally gave up on him and the next player I used (with worse attributes) started hitting the back of the net immediately after getting the starting spot.

Because of this form snowball effect, I try to ensure my striker is my penalty taker to help protect against goal droughts. I also like to have a two-striker alternate tactic because those tend to be more insulated from striker goal drought effects.

[zyfon5]

2 hours ago, Overmars said:

One thing to keep in mind when using lone-striker tactics is that the game will crush you if your striker is on poor form. This is especially true once the game starts counting the minutes since your striker's last goal. I used a similar formation to you in a recent save, and my lone striker scored twice in 18 matches. I finally gave up on him and the next player I used (with worse attributes) started hitting the back of the net immediately after getting the starting spot.

Because of this form snowball effect, I try to ensure my striker is my penalty taker to help protect against goal droughts. I also like to have a two-striker alternate tactic because those tend to be more insulated from striker goal drought effects.

It is true only if u are dependent on the striker to score most of your goals. I had played using single striker tactics where the goals also come from attacking midfielders. Hence even the striker is on poor form others will get the goals for me. What most ppl failed to do is not have multiple ways of attacking and too reliant on their strikers to score hence the struggles mentioned above.